Friday, 4 March 2011

[W]e must respect one another's choices. - Norm Phelps[The] insistence that animal rights advocates abstain from supporting reform campaigns [is] distracting and divisive... [W]e must all hang together or the animals will all suffer and die separately. - Norm Phelps

We will begin at the beginning, that is to say, with Norm's style christened by us – not without a certain liberty, for who can know what goes on in the minds of such people? - his "spiritual directorness." This spiritual directorness is characterized in its essence by two mutually reinforcing tendencies: first, there is his tendency, underlined by his allegations against them, to say astonishing things about abolitionists; and second, there is his tendency to say astonishing things about welfarism, underlined, for example, by his interpretation - which is somewhat idiosyncratic - of the aforementioned study.

To address the former point first, in depicting abolitionists in - how can we put it? - "spiritual" terms, that is to say, as belonging to a "denomination" with a "rigid strategic orthodoxy," and in addition favoring "theoretical" elegance over "welfarist reforms that ease the suffering of animals," he exemplifies his spiritual directorness. For this depiction - some may call it a mendacious caricature - is astonishing, and appears to be loaded with associations which are never fully explained or exemplified, and which, if he were not a "former spiritual director," we would say he insinuates knowingly and deliberately in an effort to discredit abolitionism. However, since he is, he would surely not be capable of doing a such thing, would he? Yet, at the same time, it must be said that he does wheel out these allegations indiscriminately as his stereotyped response to any criticism of welfarism.

What could be the purpose underlying Norm's allegations? Could it be, oh say to scapegoat abolitionists for the failures of welfarism after all attempts to defend "'single issue campaigns' for reform" miscarried - in much the same way as (other) reactionaries scapegoat minority groups for the failures of right-wing government? How assess this interpretation? On the one hand, he is a "former spiritual director" who dispensed spiritual wisdom - albeit in return for a salary - so it may not be right; but then again, referring to abolitionists, he does say this:

[The] insistence that animal rights advocates abstain from supporting reform campaigns [is] distracting and divisive... [W]e must all hang together or the animals will all suffer and die separately.

So, just to be clear about it: Norm is here claiming that not some, nor yet many, but indeed "all" the animals "will suffer and die" if we reject welfarism - or, to put it the other way around, if we support abolitionism. That, we feel, is a sufficient illustration, in and of itself, of the attribute by which we have claimed his writing on the abolition / welfare debate as a whole, in its totality, is marked, namely its spiritual directorness.

Now, to take the second point, that in saying astonishing things about welfarism Norm further exemplifies his spiritual directorness: in his essay, he comments on a study, as we said, which claims that meat consumption has increased. And yet of the results of this study he says:

The findings are clear and unequivocal: 'As a whole, media attention to animal welfare has significant, negative effects on U.S. meat demand.' (Kansas State University) In other words, publicity regarding the welfare of farmed animals—the preponderance of which is generated by campaigns for "welfarist" reforms—causes the public to buy and eat less meat. And they buy less meat overall; they do not simply switch from one type of meat to another.

In Norm's interpretation, then, meat consumption has decreased "overall" owing to welfarist reform, the latter, a tactical necessity, being a glorified success; whereas, in fact, in the study it actually claims that there has not been a reduction in demand "overall," but merely a reduction in the rate of demand-increase expected by agricultural economists. The study states (on p. 9) the crux of the matter as follows:

Our model suggests that pork and poultry demand increases over the last decade would have been (ceteris paribus) 2.65% and 5.01% higher, respectively, if media attention in 2008(4) was at equivalent levels as 1999(1).

Using the estimated longrun elasticities it is suggested that pork and poultry demand increases over the last decade would have been 2.65percent and 5.01 percent higher, respectively if media attention in the fourth quarter of 2008 was at equivalent levels as the first quarter of 1999 [p.2].

Not a reduction in any absolute sense, then, but only in demand increase.

We are now in a position to detect some confusion in Norm's interpretation, of which, however, he must be innocently unaware, but which nonetheless is compulsively present throughout it. Perhaps we can illustrate the precise nature of this confusion by an analogy. Suppose, for example, that the murder rate, told by some study, increased by 25% from one year to the next and yet the police had been expecting it to increase by 50%. Now would anyone other than perhaps "spiritual director[s]" say that the murder rate had significantly decreased "overall"? And if someone did say so, what would he be trying to accomplish? Perhaps to impart a spurious imitation of success to the police's policy, which had in reality failed to decrease the murder rate - in other words: to confuse, obfuscate, or whitewash it.

Moreover, again in fidelity to his tendency to say astonishing things about welfarism, Norm says that the study claims that consumers "do not simply switch from one type of meat to another," whereas, in fact, it actually claims that consumers simply do not consume more meat from what it (rather absurdly) calls the "meat complex," a term that ranges over three meats: beef, pork, and poultry. That is a definition, then, that is non-exhaustive, in the sense that it does not encompass all meats, indubitably in consequence leaving open the possibility - which this former "spiritual director" disregards - that consumers could have switched either to some other type of meat, such as fish, or to non-meat animal products, i.e., eggs or dairy.

It may be said in reply that although welfarism has not effected a reduction in demand "overall," it has reduced the rate of demand-increase. Suppose for the sake of the argument that this were so; would it follow that we should support welfarism? That slide is not justified by logic, since even if welfarism had effected such a reduction it would still not be of as great efficacy in reducing demand as abolitionism. To see this quite clearly one need only consider that welfarism, with its non-abolitionist message, can only ever secure collateral wins, whereas abolitionism, by contrast, is causally responsible for creating new vegans, that being achieved directly by its clear and unequivocal message: animal exploitation, in all its distressing manifestations, is wrong. Furthermore, from this it is not to be inferred that welfarism is merely ineffective or vegan-lite, in the sense of simply convincing proportionally fewer people to become vegan than abolitionism does; for "'single issue campaigns' for reform" are correlated - as show by the study - not with a decrease, but an increase, in meat consumption. This being so, it follows that welfarism is actually counterproductive; it moves us backwards, not forwards - and it is by the fear of the exposure of this that Norm's reactionary scare tactics, in all their luridness, are produced.

So, to sum up: increased, meat consumption has; decreased, meat consumption has not - and this despite or because of welfarism, into which hundreds of millions of dollars has been poured. And accordingly vegans have a difficult choice to make between supporting welfarist advocacy, and giving up such advocacy for abolitionist advocacy: all those vegans who want animal use to carry on increasing (though perhaps at a slightly reduced rate) should support "'single issue campaigns' for reform"; but all those who want to reduce animal use "overall," in an absolute sense, with the aim of abolishing it once and for all, should support nothing but veganism.

And, with that, we shall bring this commentary to a close; but not before welcoming Norm Phelps, "former spiritual director," into the CCHF (Clowns' Corner Hall of Fame), where he joins the author of TLBAMN (Total Liberation By Any Means Necessary), Steve Best: illustrious company, indeed.

P.S.: Norm speaks of the idea that progress toward abolition will necessarily be incremental, in the sense of occurring gradually and not all at once. This is an important, if obvious, idea, which - when he says, "Each step forward must become the starting point for the next step forward" - Norm unfortunately degrades to the level of an expression of sickly sentimentality[2]; and this in conjunction with "[We] must respect one another's choices" unavoidably leads us to think of Norm as a spiritual CEO, someone who would, we feel, definitely have a spiritual secretary.

[1] Norm was "the former spiritual director of The Fund for Animals." We wonder how lucrative that position was for him.

[2] Such sickly sentimentality is a constant feature of much new welfarist writing (see, e.g., Anthony Nocella), and is intended, we think, to have a sterilizing effect on new welfarists' propagandistic accusations against abolitionists.

Monday, 17 January 2011

My name is David Sztybel. (This assertion can incidentally be logically demonstrated by my parents, who named me. Note to self: must write a blog essay on this important animal liberation topic; working title: "Am I David Sztybel?", a companion piece perhaps to my seminal essay "Am I Obsessed with Gary Francione?"). In any event, as anyone who has read my ARZone chat transcript can logically verify, I am a philosopher, one, indeed, who is simply trying to do his job of relevantly distinguishing truth from falsehood.

Being a philosophy scholar, I have my own theory, called "Sztybelism" – so-called for the following reason which I discovered at dictionary.com (which incidentally is where all great philosophers do their research): given that you form the name of a philosopher's theory by adding the suffix -ism to his or her sir name, and given that I am David Sztybel (see future blog writing and/or my parents, as mentioned above), it follows logically that my theory should be called "Sztybelism."

Below are nine numbered points which logically and conjunctively demonstrate that Sztybelism is intellectually superior to Francionism:

(1) The author of Zombie Jesus supports Sztybelism. Could a more compelling proof of my theory be imagined?

(2) US artist Ante Bozanich also supports Sztybelism. Any more evidence required?

(3) The best is not the worst and the worst is not the best. This is the most important proposition of Sztybelism.

(4) We should do what helps animals.

(5) We should not do what does not help animals.

(6) We have to support the worst in the short term in order to promote the best in the long term. This is the second most important proposition of Sztybelism.

(7) We should be fully caring by supporting my theory of Best Caring Ethics. And being fully caring means, of course, doing the best rather than the worst (see [3]).

(8) David Sztybel is not obsessed with Gary Francione. In fact, David Sztybel doesn't even know who Gary Francione is. Therefore, I am not obsessed with Gary Francione, for if I was so obsessed, I would know who Gary Francione is; but, as I said, Gary Francione is not known by David Sztybel, who I in fact am. Is that clear enough?

(9) Being a dignified philosophy scholar, I would never insult the losers, do-nothingists, and futilitarians in the Francionist camp, those who want to sacrifice animals on the alter of personally purity instead of supporting Sztybelism.

Now imagine – just imagine – what would happen if Sztybelism became the dominant force in the animal movement? Imagine – just imagine – what would happen if every animal advocate became a Sztybelist?

I mean, who, I ask you, but the most hidebound Francione fanatic could possibly believe that Sztybelian Abolitionism, enunciated in the propositions above, is one whit less estimable or valid than abolitionism as espoused by Francione in his books Animals, Property, and the Law, Rain Without Thunder, and Introduction to Animal Rights? In fact, anyone who claims that Francionism is better than Sztybelism is either begging the question, engaging in a straw man fallacy, or insulting me.

Mission Statement

Clowns' Corner, a website run by two revolutionaries, is dedicated to exploring Total Liberationism By Any Means Necessary (TLBAMN), but above all to respecting one another's choices. We are not threatened by difference and diversity. But while Clowns' Corner exists to create a space for pluralism, contextualism, and multidimensionalism, it approaches animal advocacy essentially from the perspective of business psychology. Understanding that no one really wants to become vegan, just as no one really wants to buy an old banger, we must consider taking an indirect and flexible approach. This will naturally involve never saying what we really want (for people to become vegan) or what we really mean (that killing animals is inherently wrong) – as perhaps the most nuanced and complex means of realizing that goal, that end to which we do actually aspire. Such pragmatism accords with human nature, as it has been elaborated in business psychology, according to which people do not like being challenged to purchase things directly, be it a 1975 mark 2 Ford Capri or social justice; cutting edge sociology, according to which it is elitist to promote only what makes sense (for otherwise we would give the impression that people do not have the capacity to distinguish sense from nonsense); and the strategic principle that we must provide a platform for people who promote animal use, as well as for those who oppose it, lest we should lapse into one-dimensional, fundamentalist animal advocacy.